@article{HolzmannLittigStadlerPoppetal.2023, author = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Stadler, David and Popp, Maria and Kranke, Peter and Fichtner, Falk and Schmaderer, Christoph and Renders, Lutz and Braunisch, Matthias Christoph and Assali, Tarek and Platen, Louise and Wijnen-Meijer, Marjo and L{\"u}hnen, Julia and Steckelberg, Anke and Pfadenhauer, Lisa and Haller, Bernhard and Fuetterer, Cornelia and Seeber, Christian and Schaaf, Christian}, title = {Locating medical information during an infodemic: information seeking behavior and strategies of health-care workers in Germany}, series = {Healthcare}, volume = {11}, journal = {Healthcare}, number = {11}, issn = {2227-9032}, doi = {10.3390/healthcare11111602}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-319306}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of — often contradictory — evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. Methods: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers — and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ\(^2\)-tests. Results: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57\%), TV (57\%), and e-mail/newsletters (46\%) as preferred information sources — physicians chose official websites (63\%), e-mail/newsletters (56\%), and professional journals (55\%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66\%), videos (45\%), and webinars (40\%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66\%), abstracts (62\%), webinars (48\%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63\%) vs. physician HCWs (70\%). Conclusion: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.}, language = {en} } @article{HerrmannLotzKaragiannidisetal.2022, author = {Herrmann, Johannes and Lotz, Christopher and Karagiannidis, Christian and Weber-Carstens, Steffen and Kluge, Stefan and Putensen, Christian and Wehrfritz, Andreas and Schmidt, Karsten and Ellerkmann, Richard K. and Oswald, Daniel and Lotz, G{\"o}sta and Zotzmann, Viviane and Moerer, Onnen and K{\"u}hn, Christian and Kochanek, Matthias and Muellenbach, Ralf and Gaertner, Matthias and Fichtner, Falk and Brettner, Florian and Findeisen, Michael and Heim, Markus and Lahmer, Tobias and Rosenow, Felix and Haake, Nils and Lepper, Philipp M. and Rosenberger, Peter and Braune, Stephan and Kohls, Mirjam and Heuschmann, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick}, title = {Key characteristics impacting survival of COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation}, series = {Critical Care}, volume = {26}, journal = {Critical Care}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1186/s13054-022-04053-6}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299686}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background Severe COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) often requires extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Recent German health insurance data revealed low ICU survival rates. Patient characteristics and experience of the ECMO center may determine intensive care unit (ICU) survival. The current study aimed to identify factors affecting ICU survival of COVID-19 ECMO patients. Methods 673 COVID-19 ARDS ECMO patients treated in 26 centers between January 1st 2020 and March 22nd 2021 were included. Data on clinical characteristics, adjunct therapies, complications, and outcome were documented. Block wise logistic regression analysis was applied to identify variables associated with ICU-survival. Results Most patients were between 50 and 70 years of age. PaO\(_{2}\)/FiO\(_{2}\) ratio prior to ECMO was 72 mmHg (IQR: 58-99). ICU survival was 31.4\%. Survival was significantly lower during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A subgroup of 284 (42\%) patients fulfilling modified EOLIA criteria had a higher survival (38\%) (p = 0.0014, OR 0.64 (CI 0.41-0.99)). Survival differed between low, intermediate, and high-volume centers with 20\%, 30\%, and 38\%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Treatment in high volume centers resulted in an odds ratio of 0.55 (CI 0.28-1.02) compared to low volume centers. Additional factors associated with survival were younger age, shorter time between intubation and ECMO initiation, BMI > 35 (compared to < 25), absence of renal replacement therapy or major bleeding/thromboembolic events. Conclusions Structural and patient-related factors, including age, comorbidities and ECMO case volume, determined the survival of COVID-19 ECMO. These factors combined with a more liberal ECMO indication during the 2nd wave may explain the reasonably overall low survival rate. Careful selection of patients and treatment in high volume ECMO centers was associated with higher odds of ICU survival.}, language = {en} } @article{HolzmannLittigFrankSchmadereretal.2022, author = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Frank, Tamara and Schmaderer, Christoph and Braunisch, Matthias C. and Renders, Lutz and Kranke, Peter and Popp, Maria and Seeber, Christian and Fichtner, Falk and Littig, Bianca and Carbajo-Lozoya, Javier and Meerpohl, Joerg J. and Haller, Bernhard and Allwang, Christine}, title = {COVID-19 Vaccines: Fear of side effects among German health care workers}, series = {Vaccines}, volume = {10}, journal = {Vaccines}, number = {5}, issn = {2076-393X}, doi = {10.3390/vaccines10050689}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-270561}, year = {2022}, abstract = {(1) Background: Health care workers (HCWs) play a key role in increasing anti-COVID vaccination rates. Fear of potential side effects is one of the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy. We investigated which side effects are of concern to HCWs and how these are associated with vaccine hesitancy. (2) Methods: Data were collected in an online survey in February 2021 among HCWs from across Germany with 4500 included participants. Free-text comments on previously experienced vaccination side effects, and fear of short- and long-term side effects of the COVID-19 vaccination were categorized and analyzed. (3) Results: Most feared short-term side effects were vaccination reactions, allergic reactions, and limitations in daily life. Most feared long-term side effects were (auto-) immune reactions, neurological side effects, and currently unknown long-term consequences. Concerns about serious vaccination side effects were associated with vaccination refusal. There was a clear association between refusal of COVID-19 vaccination in one's personal environment and fear of side effects. (4) Conclusions: Transparent information about vaccine side effects is needed, especially for HCW. Especially when the participants' acquaintances advised against vaccination, they were significantly more likely to fear side effects. Thus, further education of HCW is necessary to achieve good information transfer in clusters as well.}, language = {en} } @article{HolzmannLittigBraunischKrankeetal.2021, author = {Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Braunisch, Matthias Christoph and Kranke, Peter and Popp, Maria and Seeber, Christian and Fichtner, Falk and Littig, Bianca and Carbajo-Lozoya, Javier and Allwang, Christine and Frank, Tamara and Meerpohl, Joerg Johannes and Haller, Bernhard and Schmaderer, Christoph}, title = {COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and hesitancy among healthcare workers in germany}, series = {Vaccines}, volume = {9}, journal = {Vaccines}, number = {7}, issn = {2076-393X}, doi = {10.3390/vaccines9070777}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-242627}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Vaccination hesitancy is a threat to herd immunity. Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a key role in promoting Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in the general population. We therefore aimed to provide data on COVID-19 vaccination acceptance/hesitancy among German HCWs. For this exploratory, cross-sectional study, an online survey was conducted in February 2021. The survey included 54 items on demographics; previous vaccination behavior; trust in vaccines, physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and health politics; fear of adverse effects; assumptions regarding the consequences of COVID-19; knowledge about vaccines; and information seeking behavior. Odds ratios with 95\% confidence intervals were calculated and chi-square tests were performed. Four thousand five hundred surveys were analyzed. The overall vaccination acceptance was 91.7\%. The age group ≤20 years showed the lowest vaccination acceptance. Factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were lack of trust in authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Attitudes among acquaintances were associated with vaccination hesitancy too. Participants with vaccination hesitancy more often obtained information about COVID-19 vaccines via messenger services or online video platforms and underperformed in the knowledge test. We found high acceptance amongst German HCWs. Several factors associated with vaccination hesitancy were identified which could be targeted in HCW vaccination campaigns.}, language = {en} } @article{WernerPoppFichtneretal.2022, author = {Werner, Anne and Popp, Maria and Fichtner, Falk and Holzmann-Littig, Christopher and Kranke, Peter and Steckelberg, Anke and L{\"u}hnen, Julia and Redlich, Lisa Marie and Dickel, Steffen and Grimm, Clemens and Moerer, Onnen and Nothacker, Monika and Seeber, Christian}, title = {COVID-19 intensive care — Evaluation of public information sources and current standards of care in German intensive care units: a cross sectional online survey on intensive care staff in Germany}, series = {Healthcare}, volume = {10}, journal = {Healthcare}, number = {7}, issn = {2227-9032}, doi = {10.3390/healthcare10071315}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-281865}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Backround: In February 2021, the first formal evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the inpatient treatment of patients with COVID-19 were published in Germany and have been updated twice during 2021. The aim of the present study is to re-evaluate the dissemination pathways and strategies for ICU staff (first evaluation in December 2020 when previous versions of consensus-based guidelines (S2k) were published) and question selected aspects of guideline adherence of standard care for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Methods: We conducted an anonymous online survey among German intensive care staff from 11 October 2021 to 11 November 2021. We distributed the survey via e-mail in intensive care facilities and requested redirection to additional intensive care staff (snowball sampling). Results: There was a difference between the professional groups in the number, selection and qualitative assessment of information sources about COVID-19. Standard operating procedures were most frequently used by all occupational groups and received a high quality rating. Physicians preferred sources for active information search (e.g., medical journals), while nurses predominantly used passive consumable sources (e.g., every-day media). Despite differences in usage behaviour, the sources were rated similarly in terms of the quality of the information on COVID-19. The trusted organizations have not changed over time. The use of guidelines was frequently stated and highly recommended. The majority of the participants reported guideline-compliant treatment. Nevertheless, there were certain variations in the use of medication as well as the criteria chosen for discontinuing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to guideline recommendations. Conclusions: An adequate external source of information for nursing staff is lacking, the usual sources of physicians are only appropriate for the minority of nursing staff. The self-reported use of guidelines is high.}, language = {en} } @article{SchmidGrieselFischeretal.2022, author = {Schmid, Benedikt and Griesel, Mirko and Fischer, Anna-Lena and Romero, Carolina S. and Metzendorf, Maria-Inti and Weibel, Stephanie and Fichtner, Falk}, title = {Awake prone positioning, high-flow nasal oxygen and non-invasive ventilation as non-invasive respiratory strategies in COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis}, series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine}, volume = {11}, journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine}, number = {2}, issn = {2077-0383}, doi = {10.3390/jcm11020391}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-255225}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Background: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. Results: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95\% CI 0.65-1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03-1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71-0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51-2.31). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.}, language = {en} }